Talk:Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The cat: Unseen Character isn't true about Big Brother. As you can see, this article even has a pic of him, and in the book and films, he is seen all the time on posters and screens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronks (talk • contribs) .

I think that "unseen" may more be intended to mean that we don't actually see the physical character himself at any point in the book. Hbackman 22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Spelling Error

"...with a long pause between the first 'B' and the second—a heavy mumurous sound, somehow curiously..."

Not really a big problem, it just says mumurous instead of murmurous.

[edit] Uncle Sam?

Who thought it was funny to add "See also: Uncle Sam"? I'm having trouble drawing a connection, unless both are national icons, but that's a stretch. I'm removing it. (User:Stalefries) 134.39.51.9 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't supposed to be funny. They are both personifications of the state used in nationalistic war propaganda. Uncle Sam is arguably unlike Big Brother in that he is not inside the house watching you, but outside protecting you. Nevertheless, the psychological technique of the appeal to family values, the association of governmental authority with benevolent familial authority, the appeal to the "national family"--these are identical in the two propagandas. The powerful, vaguely threatening appearance of the figures themselves is also shared. As I said in my summary comment, this would be better explained in the article... but I was feeling lazy.
I must say, many people have a rather distorted image of Big Brother, apparently based on popular usage of the term by those who have not read 1984. For example, one wonders if the producers of that reality TV show have ever done so. Big Brother really should be understood as Oceania's Uncle Sam. But I guess you thought I meant to imply Uncle Sam was USA's Big Brother! That, of course, is ridiculous. -65.75.18.227 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
To clarify that further, in modern society (as opposed to Oceania!) Big Brother connotes brutal totalitarian surveillance. Uncle Sam is not watching you! But other than that they are the same. They served the same propaganda function, in the same way--the only reason for the difference was that Oceania was a totalitarian state based on surveillance while WWI USA was not. Each one is adapted to its particular state, but as a propaganda technique, as an instrument of ideological power (i.e., in the way most relevant to 1984), they are indistinguishable. -65.75.18.227 10:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secure beneath the watchful eyes

Great stuff! TODO: incorporate this into the article. -65.75.18.227 10:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Caption

Second picture down the page (movie screenshot) the caption is 'Big Brother's face looms on giant telescreens in Victory Square (the actual movie location is Alexandra Palace in Muswell Hill, north London) in Michael Radford's 1984 film adaptation of George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four.'

I think the set used (Alexander Palace) is surplus to information as strictly speaking it has nothing to do with the book or the character/organisation the page is supposed to describe. I'll remove it if nobody objects in a few days, and after that I suppose it can be reverted. Andrewjd 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Telescreen.png

Image:Telescreen.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Big Brother image?

So yeah, where the hell is the original Big Brother image, from the first 1984 movie? Why isn't it shown here? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the image from the 1954 version? In edit mode, you can see that it was commented out because the image was deleted. And if you go to Image:Bbc19842.jpg, you'll see that the image was deleted last July because it was a fair-use image with no fair-use rationale provided.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So is the image bound by copyright or not? Its so widely used at this point that I wonder if its become public domain.. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ministries naming

It says that the ministry of love is the most straight forward, but the reason it gives is because the thought criminals leave loving big brother. It also says that the other ministries are the inverse of their names. But in the book, it asks if the ministry of truth edits history, then is it really a lie? And since there is obviously plenty of resources to waste on outdated military equipment, doesn't the ministry of plenty really have plenty of resources? And since the ministry of peace fights the wars over the useless territories so that they don't have to fight a war on their own soil, don't they really keep the peace?

The ministries are exactly what they say they are, in their own, perverse way, and the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.102.14 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)